Recap: Green Bay Packers Defeat Cowboys 17-7
by Brandon on Nov 16, 2009 7:00 AM CST
in News
92 comments
From Blogging the Boys:
The Cowboys offense was terrible, the defense hung tough for as long as they could, but eventually buckled late in the game. This was all on the offense, though.
So that's a Cowboys fan's perspective. Looking back at the play-by-play, it took the Cowboys the first 3 quarters to figure it out on offense. They were shut out for most of the game because they weren't able to run the ball or protect QB Tony Romo. Also, while the Packers had more penalties and penalty yards, the Cowboys penalties seemed to hurt them more. They weren't able to get any rhythm on offense because of their running game, pass protection, and the penalties. Then, in their final 2 drives, they managed to protect Romo (except for that big hit DE Johnny Jolly put on him) and they abandoned the run. It could have led to 2 TDs, except CB Charles Woodson jumped the route on the goal line for his big INT.
While it's not unusual to see a great defensive performance from the Packers, it was unusual to see the pass rush work so well in this game. The concern is that it was only a temporary surge of sacks and QB hits. While Romo kept taking hits, he wasn't sacked on his final 26 pass attempts. Also, the Packers allowed another red zone TD pass, their 6th one allowed in the past 3 games.
The offensive line struggled again, allowing 4 sacks and 4 QB hits. Overall the offense struggled with an inconsistent running game, sacks, and penalties. They did manage to put it together for one long TD drive, but even then the Cowboys' penalties helped move it along. Dallas' defense has gotten better as the season has gone on, but it was not a great offensive performance. The exception being that they had zero turnovers (1 turnover was negated by a penalty).
The special teams weren't great, but nobody on the Cowboys will be named NFC special teams player of the week either. The kick and punt coverage looked a lot better this week, so hopefully this is the start of a good trend.
The Packers don't play another team with a winning record until December 20th (the Steelers in Pittsburgh). It's never easy in the NFL, but hopefully they can keep winning over the next four weeks. They play 3 of their final 4 games on the road, so this is the time to build a lead in the Wild Card standings.
Cowboys vs Packers coverage; Cowboys vs Packers recap; Cowboys vs Packers boxscore; Blogging The Boys
Play-by-play from NFL.com:
First Quarter:
(14:15) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short middle to 85-G.Jennings to GB 30 for 11 yards (32-O.Scandrick, 26-K.Hamlin).
The 3rd play of the game was already a 3rd and 16 situation. I counted 12 plays ran where the distance was 10+ yards, out of 68 plays during the game. The penalties and negative yards just killed the flow of the offense throughout the game.
(12:25) 24-M.Barber left end pushed ob at GB 26 for 13 yards (36-N.Collins).
(11:43) 24-M.Barber up the middle to GB 19 for 7 yards (59-B.Jones).
The Packers' run defense has been outstanding most of the season, but the Cowboys had some success running the ball. So I was surprised to see they ended up averaging 4.4 yards/carry, but only called 14 running plays vs. 39 pass attempts. But their last two offensive drives went for 15 and 11 plays, all passes, and by that point they were down 17-0. They didn't have a lot of opportunities to run the ball.
(10:36) 6-N.Folk 38 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-91-L.Ladouceur, Holder-1-M.McBriar.
A gift from K Nick Folk. I always expect kickers to make them against the Packers.
(6:06) 2-M.Crosby 52 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-61-B.Goode, Holder-10-M.Flynn.
Unfortunately K Mason Crosby matched with a missed FG of his own, after a good drive fizzled out at the Dallas 34 yard line.
(3:18) PENALTY on GB-70-T.Lang, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at GB 19 - No Play.
The only penalty on RT T.J. Lang, who did a good job matched up against LB DeMarcus Ware for much of the game. It seemed like LT Chad Clifton had more problems with Ware than Lang did.
(1:16) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 15 for -8 yards (32-O.Scandrick). FUMBLES (32-O.Scandrick), RECOVERED by DAL-32-O.Scandrick at GB 15. PENALTY on DAL-21-M.Jenkins, Illegal Use of Hands, 5 yards, enforced at GB 23 - No Play.
The Packers committed 12 penalties for 100 yards, but the Cowboys hurt themselves more with penalties. If this fumble hadn't been overturned at the Packer 15 yard line, it obviously could have turned the game around.
Second Quarter:
(15:00) 9-T.Romo sacked at DAL 41 for -10 yards (56-N.Barnett).
I don't remember LB Nick Barnett ever blitzing this much in a game before. It kept working, so I guess Dom Capers just kept calling it.
(11:48) 12-A.Rodgers right end ran ob at GB 41 for 2 yards (94-D.Ware). PENALTY on GB-41-S.Havner, Personal Foul, 15 yards, enforced between downs. Penalty on GB-86-D.Lee, Offensive Holding, declined.
What a dumb play by TE Spencer Havner. I don't remember any obviously dumb late hits in the Buccaneers game, but they have had at least one in 3 of their 4 previous games. I don't notice other teams making those mental mistakes.
(9:04) 28-F.Jones right end to DAL 31 for no gain (90-B.Raji, 50-A.Hawk).
After gaining some good rushing yards on their first drive, the Cowboys only gain 11 yards on 6 carries for the rest of the 1st half. The Cowboys are averaging 5.1 yards/carry this season, so their struggles running the ball had to disrupt their offense.
(4:03) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass deep middle to 11-R.Williams to GB 30 for 42 yards (21-C.Woodson). FUMBLES (21-C.Woodson), RECOVERED by GB-52-C.Matthews at GB 31. 52-C.Matthews to GB 31 for no gain (19-M.Austin).
The first big play by Woodson. He strips the ball from WR Roy Williams after a long gain. Watch it here.
(2:10) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 30 for -5 yards (72-S.Bowen). FUMBLES (72-S.Bowen), recovered by GB-86-D.Lee at GB 36. 86-D.Lee to GB 36 for no gain (26-K.Hamlin).
Unfortunately no offense came from the turnover. Two sacks, and a fumble, in three plays. Rodgers got really lucky that 2 fumbles were recovered, and a 3rd one, the only one he lost, was overturned on a penalty.
(1:50) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo sacked at DAL 14 for -3 yards (52-C.Matthews).
LB Clay Matthews ran right around LT Flozell Adams. The speed of Matthews, Barnett, Woodson, and Collins on the blitz really caused their big, slow offensive line problems. It led to a 3-and-out, with one more chance to score.
(:02) 2-M.Crosby 48 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-61-B.Goode, Holder-10-M.Flynn.
Crosby nailed it. That kick would have been good from 60 yards at least.
Third Quarter:
(13:29) 1-M.McBriar punts 47 yards to GB 26, Center-91-L.Ladouceur. 38-T.Williams to DAL 46 for 28 yards (1-M.McBriar). FUMBLES (1-M.McBriar), RECOVERED by DAL-91-L.Ladouceur at DAL 44. 91-L.Ladouceur to DAL 44 for no gain (94-J.Wynn). Green Bay challenged the fumble ruling, and the play was REVERSED. 1-M.McBriar punts 47 yards to GB 26, Center-91-L.Ladouceur. 38-T.Williams to DAL 46 for 28 yards (1-M.McBriar). PENALTY on GB-29-D.Martin, Illegal Block Above the Waist, 10 yards, enforced at GB 33.
After a great defensive series (run stuff, sack, incomplete pass), there was this play. It was the correct call, but what a botched play by CB Tramon Williams. While trying to avoid the punter!
(9:14) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at DAL 46 for -4 yards (54-B.Carpenter). Penalty on GB-86-D.Lee, Offensive Holding, declined.
This drive started out with 6 rushing attempts (1 by Rodgers on a scramble). It helped keep the offense out long yardage situations, but they couldn't pass the ball when they needed to.
(8:56) Direct snap (Shotgun) 23-T.Choice left tackle to DAL 31 for 11 yards (79-R.Pickett). PENALTY on GB-31-A.Harris, Face Mask (15 Yards), 15 yards, enforced at DAL 31.
I'll be interested to see if CB Al Harris is fined for this phantom face mask penalty. The league office seems to fine every personal foul.
(7:59) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass deep middle to 23-T.Choice to GB 35 for 22 yards (36-N.Collins). PENALTY on DAL-82-J.Witten, Offensive Pass Interference, 10 yards, enforced at DAL 43 - No Play.
That was a big pass, completed into Packer territory. And TE Jason Witten is called for the pick far away from the play. Another critical Cowboy penalty.
(4:08) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short right to 85-G.Jennings to GB 48 for 14 yards (41-T.Newman).
(2:10) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short middle to 86-D.Lee to DAL 38 for 17 yards (25-P.Watkins).
This is their big 15 play, 80 yard TD drive. After getting stuck in 3rd and long all game, they convert on 3-11 and 3-13 to keep the drive alive.
(:13) 25-R.Grant left end to DAL 23 for -2 yards (94-D.Ware). PENALTY on DAL-32-O.Scandrick, Illegal Use of Hands, 5 yards, enforced at DAL 21 - No Play.
Scandrick killed them on this drive with 2 penalties that resulted in 1st downs.
Fourth Quarter:
(15:00) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep right to 89-J.Jones.
He had WR James Jones opened down the sideline, but it was just overthrown.
(13:17) 12-A.Rodgers left guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on DAL-94-D.Ware, Defensive Offside, declined.
Rodgers has been productive running the ball this season. He ran for a 1st down earlier in the game, and then this TD.
(11:52) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo sacked at DAL 25 for -7 yards (21-C.Woodson). FUMBLES (21-C.Woodson), touched at DAL 20, RECOVERED by GB-52-C.Matthews at DAL 7. 52-C.Matthews pushed ob at DAL 3 for 4 yards (82-J.Witten).
Why can't they review whether one team has recovered their own fumble? Whatever the reason, it sure worked out for the Packers because RB Felix Jones probably recovered it. Watch it here.
(10:53) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short left to 41-S.Havner for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Spencer Havner: reliable go-to receiver. Who knew? Watch it here.
(8:14) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass incomplete deep middle to 80-M.Bennett.
Bullet: dodged. It looked like he was wide open and had a clear lane to the end zone, but Romo overthrew him.
(6:03) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass short right intended for 82-J.Witten INTERCEPTED by 21-C.Woodson at GB 1. 21-C.Woodson to GB 4 for 3 yards (82-J.Witten).
Just a back breaker. A 16 play, 76 yard drive ends when Woodson does a great job and jumps the route. They were finally able to keep the pressure off Romo and move the ball down the field, but it was a battle for every completion. This drive ate up almost 5 minutes and gave Dallas no time to mount a comeback.
(3:31) 7-J.Kapinos punts 41 yards to DAL 46, Center-61-B.Goode. 84-P.Crayton to GB 47 for 7 yards (41-S.Havner). PENALTY on DAL-98-C.Johnson, Illegal Block Above the Waist, 10 yards, enforced at DAL 47. Penalty on DAL-85-K.Ogletree, Illegal Block Above the Waist, declined.
Too bad the Packers weren't able to run out the clock after the INT. But I point this play out because it was the second special teams penalty by Dallas DE Curtis Johnson in the 4th quarter.
(:42) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass short right to 11-R.Williams for 9 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The 2nd drive in a row where the Cowboys are able to protect Romo and move down the field. It's a good thing they weren't able to figure this out until only 11 minutes remained in the game. And this was the 2nd good game in a row for WR Roy Williams. How come the Cowboys hadn't been able to use his height against shorter CBs until recently?
0 recs |
92 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
after listening to Packers radio all night last night (620AM)
I’m starting to come to the belief that Kampman may not be best suited for the position in which the Pack have been playing him. Rookie Brad Jones was real solid yesterday, and I’m finding it hard o want to bench him for Kampman next week. What do you guys think?
Green and Gold / Black and White
by OznCoop on Nov 16, 2009 8:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah…I made a comment along those lines yesterday too. Clearly you can’t bench him but what do ya do. If we stick with the 3-4, Kampman MUST be traded in the offseason. It is inexcusable for him to remain on the team next year unless we abandon the 3-4.
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 8:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
d-line
what is wrong with putting him at DE on passing downs. He rushes the passer better then any DE we have. He may not be an every down player for the rest of the season, but it gives us the best chance to win.
This way we can rush 3 and get coverage sacks because AK never stops. He is an effort guy, not a speed rusher. Brad Jones is a better coverage LB then AK.
I am not sure why MM doesn’t call me for my opinion :)
by Acme on Nov 16, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We have been
Playing him as a down lineman much more then we originally had been. I’m not sure how playing time will look from here on out but after seeing Jones drop into coverage I don’t think that there is any question that he does it better then Kampman.
I think we should just line Kampman up at Le in the 3-4, or at least try it. I realize he isn’t ideal size and all that, but the guy is an effort guy like many people have said above. He really isn’t even ideal size for a 4-3 De but we all know how well he does that. I have a hard time believing that we couldn’t just shift the d-line over so Kampman can line up over the RT.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
DE Purpose
in a 3-4 is NOT to get around the blocker but to consume 1-2 blockers. They are supposed to take up blockers and collapse the pocket. That isn’t his style. Now if they ran a 4-3 at times, I could see him being used then, but I almost feel like we are turning him into KGB where he’s a situational player and that is just painful to hear.
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kampman cannot be "traded in offseason"
He will be a free agent. He will likely leave Green Bay without Packers getting any compensation.
Probably the best thing for both parties at this point (Kampman and Packers). “The 3-4 train has left the station” and Kampman will probably go somewhere else to catch a 4-3 one.
It’s a shame, he is one of the best pash rushers in the league when he gets to play 4-3, but McCarthy has decided moving to 4-3 is the best for the team, and if that means leaving out one of the long time top performers of the defense, I guess McCarthy has decided he is picking the scheme & then the players to fill it, rather than the other way around.
by puddnhead on Nov 16, 2009 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He is restricted
so there could be a sign and trade.
You can also franchise him and then trade him.
It will be really hard to see him go, but it will only be fair to let him play on a 4-3.
id rather have a 24 year old (human years) dog that has advanced parkinson’s batting for our team than vlad.
-BoeJouma
by blackoutsox on Nov 16, 2009 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Couple notes
First, when there is a transition to a new D, you ALWAYS have to find players to fill the spots, this isn’tsomething unique. Denver is doing it. Look at that beast of an OLB they have in Denver , Dumervil. He was a weak DE, but he lost some weight moved to OLB and has been amazing. They thought Kampman could do it but he’s proving to not be as versitile as we hoped. You don’t draft the wrong players planning years ahead for a transition, you make the transition, hope the guys adjust and those that don’t are traded or cut.
Kampman IS a free agent, but a restricted one which means we can match any offer he gets OR franchise him and trade him which is the more likely choice. There is NO way they just let him walk. Its a shame he’s been so unsuccessful away from the 3 pt stance.
OH and if he were to walk away, we’d likely get a 2nd round compensatory pick from the league anyway so really there is ZERO percent chance we get NOTHING out of him.
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just another example
of MM & TT pushing a good one out the door, huh?
He will certainly be franchised so we can “trade him in the offseason” and get some kind of draft picks for him. I hate it that he doesn’t fit the system too cause he has always been a class act but such is life.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 4:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
couldn’t agree more…just think though we almost lost him to the Vikings before he even emerged on the scene!!
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
First off he will be a restricted free agent, and I’d be willing to bet my life we franchise him and trade him before we simply let him go and possibly sign with the Vikings.
I personally don’t think going to the 3-4 was the right thing to do for us but unfortunately I have no say in it. We had hoped that Kampman could transition to Olb, and just because it hasn’t worked out wonderfully this year doesn’t mean it still can’t happen (though I kinda doubt it).
The 4-3 actually suits pretty much everyone on our defense besides Harris and Kampman.
And the main reason MM said he wanted to switch to the 3-4 was to strengthen the run defense, and too his credit it has worked.
I don’t like the thought of Kampman leaving us, but I also don’t look at it like we’re pushing him out like you seem to be hinting at.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t like the thought of Kampman leaving us, but I also don’t look at it like we’re pushing him out like you seem to be hinting at.
I’m not interested in quibbling over words. Can we at least agree that changing your scheme to something does not suit a player or his skils is at least … encouraging him to leave at the first opportunity? Is that wishy washy enough?
by puddnhead on Nov 16, 2009 10:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
to be perfectly honest
no its not. There is aboslutely no reason for wanting to encourage Kampman to leave at first opportunity. They just took a gamble at sacrificing their best defensive player to improve the rest of the defense, and while the rest of the defense has improved, it looks like were going to lose the best defensive player since he couldn’t transition (though I think he should still be given a chance as a lineman, he wouldn’t get to the QB nearly as much but would still draw double blocks, which is what a DE is supposed to do in 3-4’s)
id rather have a 24 year old (human years) dog that has advanced parkinson’s batting for our team than vlad.
-BoeJouma
by blackoutsox on Nov 16, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
NO
If they were doing that, they would’ve traded him this offseason. I don’t want him to leave, but if they were to pick up a player better suited to the system (like Shawn Merriman!) who could complain? As for those who think he’ll be franchised, I think that unlikely with Collins being a free agent.
by Donald Driver on Nov 17, 2009 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Collins is deemed to be what we thought he was, he’ll get a contract and get his money. I am not too worried there. I think its quite possible Kampman gets the franchise tag.
by TrevorR on Nov 18, 2009 7:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
We can agree that our new defense doesn’t suit his skills but that’s a risk we took because we felt like it would improve our defense. And like I pointed out above, it has improved our defense, and many of the individuals aside from Harris and Kampman.
by packallday555 on Nov 17, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How can you trade a guy
that isn’t under contract next season?
by Wade V on Nov 16, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's how:
Franchise Tag or Transitional Tag.
Godspeed...
by _William_ on Nov 17, 2009 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also Im so impressed with the was Clay Mathews has been playing,
hes a ball hawk, and a above average pass rusher. Nice game by ClayMatt yesterday.
Green and Gold / Black and White
by OznCoop on Nov 16, 2009 8:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Completely agree. He was around the ball the whole game. Seems he gets better every week.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Nov 16, 2009 8:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All three guys from that USC linebacking corp
have been monsters this year.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Nov 17, 2009 1:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Above average
is almost short changing him…he might be our most dynamic pass rusher.
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
for some reason the site isnt allowing me to reply to comments, but in response to TrevorR:
Im not trying to start a TRADE KAMPMAN club or anything, I simply think the Pack need to find a new place for him in this D. maybe some hybrid 3-4 packages with him on the line between the tackles.
Green and Gold / Black and White
by OznCoop on Nov 16, 2009 8:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
But honestly
with the direction this defense is going, he is worth more as a trading chip than he is within the defense.
by levnclf on Nov 16, 2009 9:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, not that this is the primary conisderation, but...
Kampman would also likely find a trade to be the fairest thing for him as well. Continuing to play in the 3-4 would almost certainly shorten his career.
by NYCPac on Nov 16, 2009 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I agree 100% with what you just said NYCPac. It would be fair to him, and we could likely get a very, very good deal out of it.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
true..
but he’s here now. Trade deadline is gone so they have to use him and make him look as effective as possible as to not hurt his trade value. He’s a restricted FA in the offseason too…ugh
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He will almost certainly be franchised…I would hope
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would hope so
And then hopefully TT would make a trade for picks or o-linemen ala Corey Williams
dickie_thon: Third baseman Bill Hall / Watches the third strike go by / Gamel grabs his glove
by GoGregGo on Nov 16, 2009 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are there any other key FAs that we would want to actually use the franchise tag on to KEEP though??
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jennings or Collins
But I would think we’ll be able to work out a deal with the both of them.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 5:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
didnt we sign Jennings to a 3 year deal this offseason?
id rather have a 24 year old (human years) dog that has advanced parkinson’s batting for our team than vlad.
-BoeJouma
by blackoutsox on Nov 16, 2009 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think so
I thought we signed Jennings but maybe I am wrong. I know we DIDN’T sign Collins but I think they wanted to see if he could play in this system.
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the trade agreement (or lack of)
makes things interesting too. Wouldn’t that mean we would get to keep Collins for two more years at the current price?
id rather have a 24 year old (human years) dog that has advanced parkinson’s batting for our team than vlad.
-BoeJouma
by blackoutsox on Nov 16, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Sorry about that, I’m not sure how I forgot that. Hopefully we can work something out with Collins this year because I think it’s pretty obvious that he can play in this system.
by packallday555 on Nov 17, 2009 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Situational DE/ILB?
Kampman does better rushing in space on the outside, but I wonder if in this defense if he wouldn’t do well in run support from DE and/or ILB, and pass rush from inside. Underneath routes would be a liability, but maybe it might make sense situationally. They need to just completely remove his coverage duties – he’s not good at it, and having that on his shoulders seems to diminish his rush ability, even when he’s in a 3 point stance.
by swilldog on Nov 16, 2009 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Great game
I didn’t think we had much of a shot at winning, but here we are. Romo must not have gotten the memo on how to beat the Packers, which is “throw it at Harris instead of Woodson.” I also saw Raji gettin’ some. Jolly and Jenkins are insane, though.
Most Cowboy fans think we were gifted the game by the refs but even if that is true, it was still a tough and close fought war that the Packers were fortunate to win. I have a lot more respect for Romo and the Cowboys after this match-up; the guy really is a gamer.
"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09
by PackaCracka on Nov 16, 2009 9:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
How can you be gifted the game by the refs?
When you have more penalties than the losing team?
by Charlie Kelly on Nov 16, 2009 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably
Jones recovering that fumble, and Dallas not being able to challenge it.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
that is the call but honestly, they still weren’t moving the ball on the D at that point. Dallas played like CRAP. They were stifled the entire game until it was too late. Crying about that call makes the game sound like it was close. NOw I get that tehy were only down by 10 at that point but they had done NOTHING all game…
Losers lament
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I know
Just suggesting what their fans are likely complaining about.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Challenging the Jones "recoevery"
The reason you can’t challenge a recovery of a fumble is that it leads to a challenge of nearly every scrum for a ball. “We had it before they tore it out from us under the pile!” would be the cry for almost every pile up. It would be unmanageable. Plus, assuming they treat it similar to a catch, Jones only had control for maybe half of his roll over before Jolly got it out. He didn’t gain complete control of the ball. Moot point though. My favorite part (though it wouldn’t have remained my favorite part if Big Play Clay hadn’t come up with it) is Woodson screaming about the play while the ball is still bouncing around out there. Maybe he could have blocked the guy who knocked Matthews out of bounds. But now I’m just nit-picking a guy who had a killer game so I’ll stop now.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 9:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY! Its a judgment call. What signified possession there? If the ball is moving in his hands does he have possession? The fact is the refs made a call and possession isn’t challengable. They can piss and moan but they were handily beat in that game by a team that wasn’t even going on all cylinders themselves!
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the non-silver lining
Overall, great great game. Lots of individuals stepped up and willed the Packers to the W. A good defensive effort and gameplan kept the ’Boys stymied — it looked like they walked themselves directly into a trap game; and most importantly, we did everything we needed to keep them in that trap.
Still, I’m seeing a lot of the same issues:
- Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many penalties, especially of the dumb variety
- Pass protection, though improved, still leaves a lot to be desired
- Players physically fading down the stretch
With this game, the Packers have lived to fight another day. But they absolutely MUST improve on these issues to ensure that this victory wasn’t just a one week reprieve. We’ve still got an uphill climb for a wildcard.
by swilldog on Nov 16, 2009 9:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
agree with on the issues
except for that last one. what players fading are you referring to? I’ll admit that the defense on that last drive left me a little ticked but I didn’t attribute it that much to physically fading as to mentally fading when they thought the game was over. but completely agree about the other two. the penalties are inexcusable and I never thought I’d be saying that giving up 4 sacks is an improvement.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no sacks
in the last 26 pass attempts for Romo.
by Acme on Nov 16, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
I don’t think we can say that’s because our players physically faded though. Though we didn’t get any sacks in his last 26 attempts, we got pressure on nearly all of them, which is the important thing.
And really had MM not you used him last challenge on something absolutely pointless, the Crayton catch would have been overturned and we would have turned them over on downs.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought
that Rodgers wasn’t sacked in his last 26 attempts and not Romo but I could be mistaken. I know Romo didn’t throw the ball 26 times after Woodson stripped him when Big Play Clay came up with it.
Good point on the challenges. The first one on Jordy’s “TD” was a terrible decision that basically said “we have no chance of running the ball in from the 1, I’m gonna chance it here” and the second one was bad too. Don’t even get me started on then wanting a third. I don’t know who to blast more, MM or the refs for actually considering it.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The first one was the Williams fumble
that got overturned. Then the Nelson challenge (which ended up being a bad decision, but watching it initially I couldn’t believe he wasn’t in), and then the Crayton completion (which I thought we would have lost anyways).
dickie_thon: Third baseman Bill Hall / Watches the third strike go by / Gamel grabs his glove
by GoGregGo on Nov 16, 2009 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no specific players
and I’d be willing to chalk up the softening pressure on prevent defense. But the D seemed to fade a bit toward the end of the game – it’s hard to quantify, and my perception thereof could very well be a product of my disappointment with not getting the shutout.
by swilldog on Nov 16, 2009 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you watch any team in the NFL who has a 2+ Td in the 4th quarter their defense will appear to fade. While they did go and get a Td, it’s not like they did it at ease. The Cowboys last 2 possessions took up way more time then they would have liked them too, and that is because of our defense.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very good points! VERY good. Their drives took FOREVER.
Look at the Saints, even the Rams were able to come back and make it interesting.
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Forcing a team to dink and dunk their way down the field when their down 17 points in the 4th quarter is ideal, and we were able to do so.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 5:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
that last part you mentioned is correct. More of a perception problem that we were disappointed we didn’t get the shutout. I had the same feeling.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lack of discipline is a common theme
False starts and personal fouls…
poor special teams play…
inconsistent technique by offensive linemen leading to sacks…
Although I am thrilled by the big win over a team I generally despise, I get the feeling that our team is lacking in areas that generally reflect how well coached a team is. I hope that I am wrong and have not previously been too critical of the coaching staff, but this game felt like talent overcoming poor coaching, not an actual repair of the discipline issues that have haunted this team.
Just my $0.02 worth.
by NYCPac on Nov 16, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
agree
MM should focus on being a coach and drop the offensive coordinator job.
Very happy we won, but agree that we are poorly coached.
We won because of defense and not because MM called a good game.
by Acme on Nov 16, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We won because of defense and not because MM called a good game.
While I’m not going to dispute that we won because of the defense, I don’t think your giving MM enough credit for yesterdays game. His play calling has been a large contributor to part of our sack issues and yesterday that wasn’t ever the case. He called many, many slants and screens plays, which all of us have been bitching about for the past however many weeks.
As weird as this sounds it’s much nicer to see Rodgers get sacked because one our o-lineman get beat, rather then see Rodgers get sacked because MM dials up a deep passing playing that takes too long to develop.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As weird as this sounds it’s much nicer to see Rodgers get sacked because one our o-lineman get beat, rather then see Rodgers get sacked because MM dials up a deep passing playing that takes too long to develop
It definitely sounds weird :) but it’s true
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At the same time
Without that deep passing stuff, our offense managed 3 points in the entire first half.
It’s a risk-reward situation – the dink and dunk wasn’t getting it done for us either. Sure it kept Rodgers from getting pounded after a 6.5 second dropback, but there were no big offensive plays either.
I don’t know what to think.
by Archibaldcrane on Nov 16, 2009 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Without that deep passing stuff, our offense managed 3 points in the entire first half.
This is true, but if you look at our possessions in the 1st half nearly every one of them was killed by a penalty. On our first Td drive I think we went without a penalty, and that turned out to be the difference in whether or not we were going to put together a drive. And really, that and sacks have been the things that have hampered our offense all year.
by packallday555 on Nov 16, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately
we have to assume that there is going to be a penalty or a sack on EACH AND EVERY drive and gameplan accordingly. To save the ref’s arm from throwing flags early in drives the Packers should just start every drive 10 yards back in 1st and 20. Might save us a little bit of time.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Playcalling
Not sure if anyone else say this article, but Rodgers was given more responsibility on offense this game. Not sure exactly what that translates to, but I imagine he had more freedom to call those short passing plays at the line.
What was with Kendall's shaved head?....looks like a fist with eyes.
scsteve (Pirates fan)
Correction: Jason Kendall IS a fist with eyes.
Derek (Brewers fan)
by bluejazz04 on Nov 17, 2009 12:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He wanted to LIVE
Of course a QB interested in self-preservation would not want to take deep drops with our line! LOL
by NYCPac on Nov 18, 2009 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Most of these offensive head coaches
grow out of the phase where they feel they have to call plays.
Just look at how we were all shocked to learn that Mike Shanahan hadn’t been calling plays for the Broncos in almost a decade.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Nov 17, 2009 1:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
Love the look on Nicky B’s face in that picture up top. Got me a new background for the desktop today.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 16, 2009 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He had a right to smile
Yesterday, Nick played like he did in 2007. I think he’s officially back.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Nov 17, 2009 1:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When did Nick Collins catch a case of the dropsies?
He could/should have had aleast 2 picks last night but couldnt hold on to the ball! But besides that point what a game by the D! The 3-4 does work! I hope this game is a huge confidence builder for the whole team. If they can beat an 6-2 Cowboys team (who we always seem to have trouble with) that hopefully builds the team to finish the season strong! We do have tough games but I think they all can be winable if the D keeps it up and the O wakes up
by bizzle4 on Nov 16, 2009 2:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Capers and the 3-4
The 3-4 does work!
When the switch to the 3-4 was made, we all expected growing pains.
The conventional wisdom was that it might take Capers until the second half of the schedule or, possibly, his second season to do with the Packers’ D what he has done every place he has installed his version of the 3-4 during his NFL coaching career – turn it into a top-10, or better, defense.
Then, the Packers’ stellar performance (against vanilla schemes) during the pre-season made many believe that the Packers had adapted to the system and made the transition more quickly than we had dared hope.
Now, the pre-season performance has been exposed as an illusion and, you know what?
The Packers have merely undergone the growing pains that we naturally expected in the first place.
Hopefully, it is, indeed, just part of the journey to the same results that Capers has achieved in the past.
At this point, there really is no reason to think otherwise.
Also, hopefully, that will happen sooner than later.
The glass is more than half-full.
by NorthStarr on Nov 17, 2009 2:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
VERY well put
That is EXACTLY what happened. Even more interesting, look at the Broncos…they got off quickly and their D looked amazing and NOW its catching up to them and teams are exposing them more.
Hopefully this is a sign of things to come and not just a mirage.
by TrevorR on Nov 17, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good game Packers
Your players whipped our players fair and square. Your D is good and never let Dallas get going. Good luck the rest of the season. Maybe we will meet in the playoffs.
PLAYOFFS!!
PLAYOFFS!!!!
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
by DIRE WOLF on Nov 16, 2009 2:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
haha nice Mora reference!
Our team needs to practice a lot more to get there though…
Practice?
PRACTICE?
You talkin bout practice?
by TrevorR on Nov 16, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Check out this Mora reference I pulled...
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 16, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Practice?
I know it’s important, I honestly do but we’re talking about practice.
We’re talking about practice man.
We’re talking about practice.
We’re talking about practice.
We’re not talking about the game.
We’re talking about practice.
When you come to the arena, and you see me play, you’ve seen me play right, you’ve seen me give everything I’ve got, but we’re talking about practice right now.
Hey I hear you, it’s funny to me to, hey it’s strange to me too but we’re talking about practice man, we’re not even talking about the game, when it actually matters, we’re talking about practice.
How in the hell can I make my teammates better by practicing?
by TrevorR on Nov 17, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The same to you and the Cowboys.
Wish I could have chatted with you more about this game. Hopefully, we’ll be able to do so for any future Packers-Cowboys games.
Good luck to Dallas from here on out.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 16, 2009 11:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I shouldn't say this
because we may end up competing with you guys for a wild card spot, but I really wouldn’t mind seeing you guys whip up on the Redskins.
I grew up and live in DC suburbs of Maryland, and really take alot of Shaudenfraude out of seeing the ‘Redskeens’ embarassed.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Nov 17, 2009 1:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The dark cloud that's been over my head
The last two seasons has been lifted… I Oklahoma, the cowboy fans are silent…
Goooooo-mez!
by Drew C on Nov 16, 2009 5:18 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Aren't there any Chiefs fans
in Oklahoma. Maybe Broncos?
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Nov 17, 2009 1:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Packers WIN!!
I watched the Fox pregame show and I watched Sportscenter this morning and I watched NFL Live this afternoon(You guys are probably thinking “Ken, you watch wayyyyy too much TV”). First no one picked the Packers to win on Fox and then on ESPN, no one gave the Packers any credit for the win. It was “Oh, Dallas lost.” Dom Capers finally “let slip the Dogs of War” and the defense “Cried Havoc!” They got to Tony Homo early and often and finally played like they belong in the Black and Blue division! What any Packer fan needs to take aqay from this is We won against what is a quality opponent, our defense finally got to play with out handcuffs and I hope we get to keep this up. Dom watched the film and figured out what we needed to do. We cut down on penalties and keep playing this way, improve the offensive flow(by keeping Aaron off his back), we will come into the playoffs in good shape. Who knows, maybe we’ll get a rematch with Brent and the rest of the Viqueers and we can put a hurting on them like they deserve!
by biggun33 on Nov 16, 2009 7:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I shall now day dream about this game over and over
except instead of Romo, we’re hitting Brent
id rather have a 24 year old (human years) dog that has advanced parkinson’s batting for our team than vlad.
-BoeJouma
by blackoutsox on Nov 16, 2009 7:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I kept
Flipping back and forth from NFL network to Espn to espn2 and no one was talking about GB…. No one would shut up about Belichek going for it Sunday night……. How can you question a man who had 3 super bowl rings and an Offense like that… Even I thought they’d go for it if they didn’t convert the third down… It wasn’t a big deal…. SOMEONE TALK ABOUT GREEN BAY!!!!!
Goooooo-mez!
by Drew C on Nov 16, 2009 8:24 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
OK
Can you imagine this thread if McCarthy had done the same thing, with the same results?
The glass is more than half-full.
by NorthStarr on Nov 17, 2009 2:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yikes...
exactly right though…he would be getting lynched right now…the riot mobs would be gathered around the Lombardi statue at the stadium with torches and chants about Holmgren and Favre and the glory days.
by TrevorR on Nov 17, 2009 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And those mobs would be completely wrong
Going for the 4th down there was the smart decision.
Now the play call itself, that can be argued ad nauseum, should one wish to do that. If that ball wound up in the hands of Peyton, whether it was a long field or a short one, it would have come down to the very same situation… a few seconds remaining and Manning in the red zone trying to get the winning score.
by NYCPac on Nov 18, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Matter of perspective
I would have kicked it…made peyton earn it. Easy decision…if I am at the 40 or further out I might go for it but honestly, going 60-70 with 1 time out is tough…I don’t care what you say…going 30 in the same circumstances is almost a gimme.
If I went for it, I at LEAST would have gotten the ball in the hands of Welker or Moss. I just don’t like that call…especially the timeout which gave the Colts time to plan for what was to come.
by TrevorR on Nov 19, 2009 2:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As I mentioned
I think that the choice of play calls can be seriously debated.
However, considering the defense usually played in such late game circumstances and how Manning had just looked on the prior drive, my fundamental assumption is that the game was going to come down to a final red zone stand with a failed conversion attempt or a punt. I think that if you do the math, the Pats made the smart bet, even if the end result proved bad. 30 is hardly a gimme (TD needed) and going further is not all that much tougher than getting in after the shorter trip. The big deal is the final red zone stand.
Time would not have been an issue for Peyton with the punt. One timeout is more than enough with 2:30 on the clock and the ball in the offense’s hands. In fact, the Colts had to eat some significant clock to avoid giving the Pats time to come back. That illustrates how small a factor time would have been.
by NYCPac on Nov 19, 2009 7:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
30 is hardly a gimme (TD needed) and going further is not all that much tougher than getting in after the shorter trip. The big deal is the final red zone stand.
This is a good point. I don’t think 30-40 more yards would have mattered to Manning. The Pats would have just played a prevent type defense and Manning likely would have been able to get down to the red zone anyway.
The Pats really had their way with the Colts defense all game and I don’t think going for it was a bad choice. After all, Belicheck has done this kind of thing all of his career in New England.
by packallday555 on Nov 19, 2009 8:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For starters, I don’t blame them for not picking us…I didn’t in my pick’em thing. How could you have coming off that last game and facing one of the hotter teams in the league. We won the game and actually thoroughly dominated even though we didn’t look that good doing it. That is what matters. Who cares what those clowns think?
by TrevorR on Nov 17, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
